W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Request for group input on ISSUE-83 (figure and details captions)

From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:15:16 -0500
Message-ID: <7c2a12e21001241215l55c7dbcaifb04077d79056661@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
> That sounds pretty convincing to me, I don't know of anyone being seriously confused by the cases above. And I agree your example with plain <summary> reads nicely. Shelley, are you willing to reconsider your objection on this point? Does anyone else have an opinion one way or the other?

I also find Ian's argument convincing.  There's no need for the extra
letter when we can just use <summary>, and I don't see any clear
reason why we can't.  We can use <summary> in tables as well if we
want to do that, there's no reason it has to be figure-only -- the
only reason <caption>/<legend>/<label> can't be used in multiple
elements is because of legacy parsing rules that won't be applicable
here.  The only other objection I've seen is that it's used as an
unrelated attribute, but Ian's list of all the other cases where
that's true (including two new to HTML5, it seems?) is pretty
convincing evidence that it's not a problem.
Received on Sunday, 24 January 2010 20:15:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:13 UTC